Sujatha. M vs Ravikumar

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

Petition is filed seeking transfer of the case in C.C. No. 88/2008 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and JMFC at Chintamani, Chikkaballapura District, to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has filed the First Information Report before the Jnanabharathi Police Station and during the course of investigation, the said case was transferred to Kencharalahalli Police Station and the said Kencharalahalli Police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet in the year 2008, in Charge Sheet No. 24/2008 and the court has taken cognizance and registered a case in C.C. No. 88/2008 and the case is now set-down for the evidence of CWs. 1 to 3. At this juncture, the petitioner has approached this court seeking transfer of the above said petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a Ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2041 [Samita Bhattacharjee v. Kulashekar Bhattacharjee], wherein the Apex Court has held that,-

"Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S. 25- Transfer of case- Matrimonial Suit - Suit filed at Place ''A'' in one State - Wife residing with minor child in her paternal house in other State- Suit transferred to place where wife resides."

Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the said case, the said ruling has been passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The said decision cannot be a precedent for all other cases, irrespective of facts because the facts and circumstances of one case differ from other cases. Therefore, the court has to look into the facts and circumstances of each case and to pass appropriate orders.

The complaint averments reveal that, the petitioner was given in marriage to the 1st respondent-Ravi Kumar and after the marriage, she started living in her husband''s house at Marinayakana Halli in Chintamani Taluk. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the respondents have demanded dowry and other gold articles and the demanded items were given at the time of marriage. Subsequently, it is alleged that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have started ill-treating and harassing her by demanding further dowry and also a motor cycle. Therefore, she went to her paternal house and started residing there. On these allegations a complaint came to be lodged.

First Information Report reveals that, the police found that the entire allegations with regard to the ill-treatment and harassment are alleged to have been taken place while the petitioner was residing with her husband at matrimonial house. Of course there are some materials to show that the demand of dowry was made prior to the marriage at Bangalore and the marriage was also taken place at Bangalore, but the ill-treatment and harassment alleged to have been taken place in the husband''s house. Therefore, thinking that the major portion of the allegations took place within the jurisdiction of Kencharalahalli Police Station, the Jnanabharathi Police transferred the said case to Kencharalahalli Police Station, and Kencharalahalli Police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. At the time of investigation, no objection was raised with regard to the transfer of the case to Kencharalahalli Police Station and the said police are allowed to investigate the matter and submit the charge sheet before the court. The accused persons have appeared before the court in the year 2008 itself. Since then they have been appearing before the court and the charge sheet have already been filed before the same court. Now the case is set-down for evidence of CWs. 1 to 3 and 4 & 5. At this juncture, in my opinion, no transfer can be ordered because of the simple reason that the matter is of the year 2008 and sufficient time has already been lapsed. Added to that, the accused persons have been regularly appearing before the said court. It goes without saying that the witnesses have to appear before the court for one or two days and the court can dispose of the matter by recording the evidence of those witnesses. On the other hand, if the case is transferred to Bangalore, the accused have to travel from Chintamani to Bangalore on every date of hearing. It also goes without saying that if the summons are issued to the witnesses, the court will pay witness batta and travelling expenses to the witnesses. On the other hand, the accused have to appear before the court on their own arrangements by spending their money. Moreover, since 2008 this case is pending before the Court. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not feel that any strong and sufficient reasons are made-out to transfer the said case to Bangalore from Chintamani at Chikkaballapur District, as sought. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.